Lewis v Nortex Pty Limited (in liq)

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lewis v Nortex Pty Limited (in liq) [2012] FCA 621

Citation: Lewis v Nortex Pty Limited (in liq) [2012] FCA 621
Parties: PETER LAWRENCE LEWIS v NORTEX PTY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) and BRIAN RAYMOND SILVIA IN HIS CAPACITY AS LIQUIDATOR OF NORTEX PTY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
File number: NSD 436 of 2012
Judge: BUCHANAN J
Date of judgment: 15 June 2012
Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – application to set aside a bankruptcy notice –whether orders attached to a bankruptcy notice identified payments to be made on different accounts
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Bankruptcy Regulations 1966
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Corporations Law
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
Cases cited: Kation Pty Ltd v Lamru Pty Ltd; Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd (In Liq) (No 5) [2010] NSWCA 294
Lewis v Lamru Pty Ltd; In the matter of Lewis [2011] FCA 758
Date of hearing: 7 June 2012
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 25
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J Johnson
Solicitor for the Applicant: Toomey Pegg
Counsel for the First and Second Respondents: Mr V R W Gray
Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents: Somerset Ryckmans

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 436 of 2012

BETWEEN:

PETER LAWRENCE LEWIS
Applicant

AND:

NORTEX PTY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
First Respondent

BRIAN RAYMOND SILVIA IN HIS CAPACITY AS LIQUIDATOR OF NORTEX PTY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BUCHANAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 JUNE 2012

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed with costs.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 436 of 2012

IN THE MATTER OF PETER LAWRENCE LEWIS, A DEBTOR

BETWEEN:

PETER LAWRENCE LEWIS
Applicant

AND:

NORTEX PTY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
First Respondent

BRIAN RAYMOND SILVIA IN HIS CAPACITY AS LIQUIDATOR OF NORTEX PTY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BUCHANAN J

DATE:

15 JUNE 2012

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. These proceedings concern an application to set aside a bankruptcy notice which was served on the applicant on 28 February 2012. The bankruptcy notice named as creditors “NORTEX PTY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 002 903 362 and BRIAN RAYMOND SILVIA in his capacity as liquidator of Nortex Pty Limited (in liquidation)”.

  2. The bankruptcy notice claimed a debt of $1,938,695.68.  The sum claimed was based on a JUDGMENT/ORDER signed and sealed by a Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 17 August 2010.  The amounts claimed as interest under the orders were calculated as shown in a “Schedule of Interest Calculations”. 

  3. At all relevant times the applicant controlled a company called Kation Pty Limited (“Kation”).  Mr Russell Lamb controlled a company called Lamru Pty Limited (“Lamru”).  From about June 1991 Kation and Lamru held interests in a unit trust known as the Nortex Unit Trust in the proportions of 60% and 40% respectively.…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lewis v Nortex Pty Limited (in liq) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2012] FCA 621
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lewis brought an application in the Federal Circuit Court to set aside a bankruptcy notice served by Nortex, which was in liquidation. The dispute centred on whether the orders attached to the bankruptcy notice correctly identified the payments that were to be made on different accounts. Lewis argued that the notice was invalid because it failed to accurately specify the accounts on which the payments were to be made.

The court had to determine if the orders attached to the bankruptcy notice were sufficiently precise in identifying the accounts from which payments were to be made. The statutory requirement under section 45D(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 was to ensure that the orders specified the account from which payments were to be made. The court examined whether the notice and the attached orders complied with this requirement, considering whether the vagueness in specifying the accounts rendered the notice invalid.

The court found that the notice and the attached orders were sufficiently specific, noting that while the accounts were not explicitly named, the context and the circumstances allowed for a reasonable interpretation of which accounts were intended. The court held that there was no error in the notice that would render it invalid. Consequently, the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice was dismissed. The court ordered that the application be dismissed with costs, in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed with costs.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.